“Hindi naman po siguro bulag ang taong-bayan. Nakikita naman po nila lahat ng nangyayari dito sa Senado. Bakit nag-iiba ang paraan ng ating pagbasa? Depende ba ito kung saan tayo nakatayo sa usaping pampolitika?” ~Senator Judge Camille Villar
A fierce battle over the constitutional voting threshold erupted after a Senate minority appeal failed in a 13–6–1 vote.
The Senate sitting as an impeachment court rejected the point of order raised by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano. Cayetano questioned whether the impeachment court holds the legal power to re-interpret voting rules mid-trial.
Consequently, the ruling allowed the tribunal to proceed with deciding whether to alter the conviction requirement.
MORE: Escudero Stops Raffy Tulfo Against Forcing Conclusions of Law on Corporate Earnings
‘Don’t Shave Your Votes’
Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero ruled that the impeachment tribunal maintains full authority to resolve its procedural questions. In response, Cayetano warned against lowering the threshold, stating, “don’t shave our votes” during the high-stakes proceedings.
Cayetano used the phrase “don’t shave our votes” as a symbolic warning against lowering or altering the constitutional voting threshold required to convict.
Cayetano revealed that he and his team had deliberately grown out their beards as a quiet symbol against reducing the required vote count.
He explained that when Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero issued his initial ruling on July 6—which upheld the requirement of two-thirds of all 24 members (16 votes)—the team almost shaved their beards.
However, they chose not to shave because they feared the threshold would later be reopened and reduced, which Cayetano characterized as actual “vote shaving”.
The Youngest Senator’s Vote
Explaining her “Yes” vote on the appeal, Senator Judge Camille Villar emphasized that the required voting threshold to impeach a public official is a fundamental constitutional question rather than a mere internal or procedural rule.
She stressed that the constitutional framers intentionally set high standards to protect due process and respect the millions of Filipinos who elected public officials.
As the youngest member of the chamber, Villar declared that the Senate must remain a defender of the Constitution and democracy, warning against altering rules midway through a trial simply because an outcome might prove difficult or inconvenient.
Reminding her colleagues that history will judge both their decision and how they reached it, she concluded that she chooses to stand firmly by the Constitution as written.
Roll Call Votes Breakdown
Following the roll call vote, 13 senators voted to sustain Escudero’s ruling, six supported Cayetano’s appeal, and one abstained. The breakdown of the 13–6–1 roll call vote in the Senate impeachment court is as follows:
13 Majority Votes (Sustained the Ruling / Against the Appeal):
Francis “Chiz” Escudero
JV Ejercito
Jinggoy Estrada
Win Gatchalian
Risa Hontiveros
Panfilo “Ping” Lacson
Manuel “Lito” Lapid
Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan
Vicente “Tito” Sotto III
Erwin Tulfo
Raffy Tulfo
Joel Villanueva
Juan Miguel “Migz” Zubiri
6 Minority Votes (In Favor of Cayetano’s Appeal):
Alan Peter Cayetano
Pia Cayetano
Christopher “Bong” Go
Imee Marcos
Robin Padilla
Camille Villar
1 Abstention: Mark Villar
Konstitusyon or Scoreboard?
Following the announcement of the 13–6–1 vote result, Senator Judge Imee Marcos explained her “Yes” vote in favor of the appeal, arguing that Article 11, Section 3(6) of the Saligang Batas strictly mandates a two-thirds vote of all Senate members to convict.
She stressed that a simple majority cannot alter a constitutional safeguard midway through a trial, noting that as a Marcos, she never expected to defend the Constitution against her father, but emphasized that it remains the supreme law of the land.
Questioning the timing and motivation behind reopening the Presiding Officer’s earlier ruling, Marcos asked her colleagues: “Binibigyang-kahulugan pa ba natin ang Saligang Batas o inaangkop lang natin ang constitutional threshold upang umayon sa mga botong mayroon tayo? Ano ba ang binabasa natin: Konstitusyon o scoreboard?”.
She concluded by warning that moving the “finish line” to fit available numbers destroys the certainty of constitutional safeguards and sets a dangerous precedent for the future.
Masyadong Halata!
Explaining his “Yes” vote for the appeal, Senator Judge Robin Padilla emphasized that the 1987 Constitution is a product of the People Power Revolution ratified directly by the Filipino people, binding lawmakers to its strict provisions.
He noted that past Constitutional Amendments Committee chairs refrained from altering the supreme law without proper constitutional processes, pointing out his own pending petition before the Supreme Court regarding voting rules to show that Congress should not alter constitutional interpretations on its own.
Padilla criticized the inconsistency in applying literal interpretations, contrasting the strict rush over the term “forthwith” with the current attempt to redefine “all members”, asking, “Depende ba ito kung saan tayo nakatayo sa usaping pampolitika? Masyado naman tayong halata.”.
Citing historical precedent, he reminded the chamber that during Chief Justice Renato Corona’s trial, former Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile explicitly maintained that “Even if we are only 20, even if we are only 17, kailangan pa rin ng 16”.
He concluded that senators are merely representatives of the people and must uphold institutional traditions and constitutional boundaries rather than shifting standards for political convenience.
Free Pdf/Doc Download:
1987 Philippine Constitution
